Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of Big Government (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 12:27:20 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of Big Government (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of Big Government  (Read 4891 times)
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,329
United States


« on: May 25, 2012, 12:34:30 AM »

Speaking as someone prosecuting a guy on his fifth drug charge (most of the others involve dealing) and said drugs were only found up the guy's butt when he was arrested on suspicion of other charges and searched, I was and am REAL happy about this decision.

That, and what Lief said. Metal detectors are expensive, and don't detect plastic weapons or drugs.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,329
United States


« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2012, 08:52:48 PM »

@ Shua and falling morgan: Your smartassed self-rightousness comments aside, I assure you both I've done more to fight government over-reaching than either of you have.

I have a great sympathy for the plaintiff here, and feel he should've been allowed to sue for false arrest and the humiliation he suffered as a result of the cavity search taken into account for damages. But that doesn't effect whether someone actually placed in incarceration post-arrest (most dui's, for example, wind up released after citation and non-jail booking) can smuggle in drugs or weapons to a jai. This is a VERY common occurrence. The results would be disastrous.

The number of break-ins, robberies and other crimes directly related to heroin, opiate, and other illegal hard drugs is staggering in my experience, and little of it has 5o do with 'black market economics' inflating the price, but rather the raw physically addicting nature of these substances that far outstrips even alcohol (an also highly addictive substance, of course).

Some substances are too dangerous to expose the public to; that's not nanny stateish, but simple consumer protection. If the government can rightly ban asbestos, non-flame retardant children's pajamas, or DDT to protect the public from it's unquestionably dangerous effects, then why not heroin?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,329
United States


« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2012, 11:16:43 PM »

I partially agree with what you say, ernest, but disagree as well. Saying heroin turns someone into a criminal 'other than the need to procure it' is kind of like saying war isn't so bad other than all the killing. The crime almost invariably committed to support a heroinhabit is the root of the problem. Also, all the available treatment in theworld isn't going to dissuede a user who doesn't see sufficient consequences from their drug abuse to quit. The threat of incarceration and/or temporary incarceration often is the 'hitting bottom' necessary for an addict to want to make that change.

Simply put, there has to be a carrot as well as a stick to combat drug addiction.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 13 queries.